Wither Iraq

[Bill Peckham]

I know we've talked about this from one angle or another but it's worth another thread. Personally I am not particularly comfortable talking about the Iraq war with people. But people's lives are at stake - nearly Four Thousand soldiers have lost their lives in combat in Iraq (not counting accidents and contractors) so the issue is as important as ever. Even if if it makes us uncomfortable I think we have to talk about it; we owe a little bit of discomfort (and plenty more) to the guys and gals in the service fighting on our behalf. We may never agree but I appreciate Bigsky for a willingness to talk about it, to say what they're thinking.

Of course I live in Seattle so the chances are that if I have a random conversation on the street (like the one today), I'll be the least liberal person in the conversation. However, I run in some suit and tie circles where the perspective is more likely to support the President, so I've heard thoughtful analysis from both sides of the issue. Here is a blog post from Mathew Yglesias at the Atlantic, this says what I am thinking http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/a_failure_of_strategy.php:

Ilan Goldenberg's right to be troubled [http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008/03/its-not-the-exe.html] by this New York Times retrospective on Iraq [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/16intro.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin]. There are some good pieces in here, but it's striking that they're all focuses on the execution of the war and none treat the strategic issue of Iraq.

But Iraq has been, first and foremost, a strategic miscalculation based on a disastrously wrongheaded conception of the strategic challenge revealed on 9/11/01. The United States had a chance to implement a focused, disciplined effort to go after al-Qaeda and remove the threat but instead George W. Bush, aided and abetted by a wide swathe of elites, chose to go in for a broad-brush vision of a "war on terror" whose centerpiece would be the invasion and occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and no meaningful relationship with al-Qaeda. The costs of that decision have been enormous, not just in terms of the tragedy that's played out for American soldiers and Iraqis of all stripes, but in terms of the opportunity cost of totally reorienting America's foreign policy and defense priorities away from useful things and toward Iraq instead.

Today, America faces not just political choices about the future of our Iraq policy, but also choices about whether future policy in other areas will continue to be guided by the strategic vision that led us into Iraq, or whether we'll return to something sounder. To just take the invasion for granted and argue about the handling of the occupation obscures much more than it reveals. Warren Strobel for McClatchy does a much better job of highlighting the big picture [http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/30413.html].

We need to take a fresh look at the situation and really consider what is in the best interest of the United States. We'll have an election here in the US in just 7 months and the difference between the two parties on this issue - What to do in/about Iraq? - could not be more distinct. Usually in the US we have elections where the issues are not that well defined, this election the issues big and small are addressed in fundamentally different ways by the two parties. At the center of the election, rightfully, is Iraq.

I think we have to reorientate American foreign policy and I think the Democrats - Obama or Clinton, but particularly Obama - offer the best opportunity going forward on January 21st , 2009. McCain is too close to current policy to make the necessary changes. Obama would offer us good options that no other President would have available.

How do you see the situation?

[Sluff]

Obama would offer us good options that no other President would have available.

How do you see the situation?

I think most politicians are liars. They tell us what we want to hear and then once they are in Office everything changes.

[AlohaBeth]

But Iraq has been, first and foremost, a strategic miscalculation based on a disastrously wrongheaded conception of the strategic challenge revealed on 9/11/01

I think this is one of the best ways i have heard the war described.  Whether you believe this war is right or wrong, you have to admit, the reason the American Citizens were told why we were there ended up not being entirely true.  Now, on the same issue -- in the process we helped a country get rid of an evil tyrant...  which is a good thing, it's helping to rebuild that country that is getting obsurd... 

Wether you believe in the war or not, or believe in any of the candidates or not, you have to admit, this election will change our world.  I agree with Bill, I have many friends over seas (and more specifically in France - where our relationship has been hurt greatly over the past 8 years) who feel that Obama will open foreign policies back up and heal some broken relationships...  Which is one of the most important things right now.   

I don't know how anyone is going to fix the mess in Iraq, we are in way too deep to immediately pull out, but we can't stay forever, it's ruined lives, made widows out of 19 year old girls, and all but destroyed the rest of the worlds faith in us.  Something has to be done.

[Mimi]

The Bush Administration has led America into disgrace with the rest of the world.The audacity of the U. S. to think they had a right to invade another country and get rid of their devil dictator.  It was not our place to do it, the
Iraqi people should have done this on their own.  It was the wrong war, the wrong foe and the wrong time, as was
mentioned in the article.  There were no weapons of mass destruction or links with al Quieda.
We were lied to.  Now we are depending on the next Presdent to clean up this mess.  And that is almost an impossibility.
We must have a President who will carefully intercede for us and gain back the respect of the world.  Therefore,
I truly believe, that Clinton or McCain would be our best bet  They each have the experience and are level headed
enough to go about this awesome task.  Obama, I am sorry to say, is young and inexperienced.  And some of his
proposed tactics scare me to death.  America needs to be very, very careful who she elects to get our country
back in shape.  I am sorry, I know this position makes some people very angry, but this is my viewpoint the situation.

Mimi 

[BigSky]

The Bush Administration has led America into disgrace with the rest of the world.The audacity of the U. S. to think they had a right to invade another country and get rid of their devil dictator.  It was not our place to do it, the
Iraqi people should have done this on their own.  It was the wrong war, the wrong foe and the wrong time, as was
mentioned in the article.  There were no weapons of mass destruction or links with al Quieda.
We were lied to.  Now we are depending on the next Presdent to clean up this mess.  And that is almost an impossibility.
We must have a President who will carefully intercede for us and gain back the respect of the world.  Therefore,
I truly believe, that Clinton or McCain would be our best bet  They each have the experience and are level headed
enough to go about this awesome task.  Obama, I am sorry to say, is young and inexperienced.  And some of his
proposed tactics scare me to death.  America needs to be very, very careful who she elects to get our country
back in shape.  I am sorry, I know this position makes some people very angry, but this is my viewpoint the situation.

Mimi 

My how LITTLE you even know about the subject to come up with that!

You should quit relying on ignorant liberal media outlets spewing bs misinformation about the subject.

[Mimi]

The Bush Administration has led America into disgrace with the rest of the world.The audacity of the U. S. to think they had a right to invade another country and get rid of their devil dictator.  It was not our place to do it, the
Iraqi people should have done this on their own.  It was the wrong war, the wrong foe and the wrong time, as was
mentioned in the article.  There were no weapons of mass destruction or links with al Quieda.
We were lied to.  Now we are depending on the next Presdent to clean up this mess.  And that is almost an impossibility.
We must have a President who will carefully intercede for us and gain back the respect of the world.  Therefore,
I truly believe, that Clinton or McCain would be our best bet  They each have the experience and are level headed
enough to go about this awesome task.  Obama, I am sorry to say, is young and inexperienced.  And some of his
proposed tactics scare me to death.  America needs to be very, very careful who she elects to get our country
back in shape.  I am sorry, I know this position makes some people very angry, but this is my viewpoint the situation.

Mimi 

My how LITTLE you even know about the subject to come up with that!

You should quit relying on ignorant liberal media outlets spewing bs misinformation about the subject.

Well if I know so LITTLE about the subject,BigSky, why don't you tell us what you think.  Then we will find out
how ignorant you are on the misinformation.

Mimi

[BigSky]

Well if I know so LITTLE about the subject,BigSky, why don't you tell us what you think.  Then we will find out
how ignorant you are on the misinformation.

Mimi

The US has no disgrace in the matter.

Fact of the matter more countries signed onto the Iraq war than signed onto Desert Storm.  The big exceptions would be those that got busted in breaking UN sanctions with Iraq.  (France, Germany, Russia, China)

US thought it had the audacity to invade Iraq?

Buy a freaking clue.  FACT of the matter was Iraq time and time again broke UN resolutions FORBIDDING Iraq from threatening member states.  The very FACT that Iraq time and time again attacked US jets gave us EVERY RIGHT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW and UN RESOLUTION to take action.  This is one of several reasons that entitled the US to take action.  UN Resolutions SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED member states to take ANY action necessary to enforce resolutions against Iraq. 

BTW to date over 750 WMD munitions have been found in Iraq.  So you can quit with the disingenuous claims that NO WMD's were found at all.  It may not have been the massive stockpiles that were said to have existed but that is neither here or there because it was not up to us to prove Iraq had any WMD at all.  It was for them to prove they no longer had ANY WMD at all as required by resolution.  Also the fact of the matter is that Iraq did have links to Al-Qaeda and in fact has had them since Iraq's involvement in the 93 WTC bombing.  Not to mention documentation that British Journalists found in Iraq during the first stages of the war that conclusively showed Iraq indeed had meetings with Al-Qaeda which AGAIN were something Iraq was FORBIDDEN to have at all by UN resolution.


So if anyone seems ignorant in this matter.  It is definitely you Mimi!

[Bill Peckham]

From FOX News 3/11/08: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html

Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein

WASHINGTON —  A forthcoming Pentagon study has found no operational link between Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network.

McClatchy Newspapers reports that the study, expected to be released later this week, is based on an extensive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were seized after the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003.

While there was no link to Al Qaeda, the investigation revealed that Saddam's regime gave some support to other terror groups in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy on condition of anonymity. But he targeted those he considered his own enemies, including Shiite Muslims, Kurds, exiles and others, the news service reported.

Sponsored by the Pentagon, the report found no "direct operational link" between Saddam's government in Iraq and bin Laden's Al Qaeda terror ring before the U.S. invasion, an official told McClatchy.

The Bush administration put forth the argument that there was a connection between Saddam and bin Laden when it made the case to go to war with Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.


"Iraq has been, first and foremost, a strategic miscalculation based on a disastrously wrongheaded conception of the strategic challenge revealed on 9/11/01." Strategic miscalculation - thought things would turn out one way and instead they have turned out to be a disaster.

[mysty]

Wether we agree or not how we got there.. the point is.. we need to get our boys (and girls!) out of there!..
We went in and made a mess.. yes.. a mess....IMHO....but so be it..

Daddy Bush didnt do it right and now the sins of the father have visited upon the son and we are paying for it in leaps and bounds with lives, the economy, etc.  Historically...(for the most part)  get a Rep in and they will try to fix the economy with a war..(and greedy oil mongers they are!)..

Going green is a bad word around Reps cause they rely on the oil... remember who's family was allowed to fly around while we all sat on our tushies renting cars to get around?

McCain is too military..
Obama will have no choice but to rely on who he surrounds himself since he really unfortunately is not well versed in this area.  His ideals are great though..
Hillary.. well..without sounding like I'm on a feminist movement.. cause trust me.. I'm not... might be the way to go.

All politicians lie... it's like picking the lesser of two evils to me.. I'm one of those that voted for Perot.. cause running a government should be business minded.

In the end..I hope and pray.. that we pull out of there quickly... and then brace ourselves... we have been fortunate to not have the troubles to the extreme other countries do.  Though now a days...anything is a given..

My only point to my post is to get our kids out of there and let the UN do their job properly and not always have us leading the way each and every friggen time.  Why did we jump out ahead of the UN?  Why have a UN then to begin with?

Ok.. i'm getting a major headache..my boy turns 18 this May and has to sign his selective service forms.. and although.. on his dad's side of the family, its a long history of service... and I would love and support my son if he chooses to enlist.. its not a mother's dream when they first count fingers and toes at birth.

And no.. don't go there with me.. I'm the VFW Ladies Aux President for my post and the Secretary for the District...I do loads of volunteer work for the Vets.. and If we are to do anything at all..and spend any more money .. it should be on those.. that came back and need our help.  I see them, I've fed them.. I'm always helping and doing all sorts of fundraisers..My pet project is the snoball express and the Children's Home for those kids that lost a parent. 

[Mimi]

That was a wonderful post Mysty.  Thank you for it.  I totally agree.  And good for you for helping the Vets and others.

And thanks Bill I was just about to do some quotes on the link.

BTW BigSky, the weapons found were thought to be manufactured before 1991.  The chemical weapons were not in useable condition. A report given by Rep. Pete Hoekatra in June, 2006 says this does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991.  These munitions are not the WMD that this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD for which this country went to war.
And what does the world think of us?  The post 9/11 perception in Europe is that the U. S. is acting solely in its own interest without regard to the interests of traditional allies including 68% of Italians, 73% of the British, 80%of the French and 85%of Germans. (Numbers from the Nat'l Public Radio.) As far as I'm concerned that is disgrace.
How ignorant is that, BigSky?

Mimi

[mysty]

Thank you Mimi..

And to bring the point home..

http://www.ksdk.com/video/default.aspx?aid=67740&sid=138863&bw=hi&cat=70 
Legacy of Ashes... this.. is how this nation thanks some of our Veterans...

I was always taught to take care of your back yard first 'fore you look over at your neighbors.
This..is what's important.... to me.. I speak for me.

[glitter]

BIGSKY FOR PRESIDENT!!!!


Mimi this subject has been discussed and re-discussed in this forum- just do a search and you will have ample evidence of both Mr. Peckham's views and Bigsky's also- with plenty of others thrown in.

Mysty-the UN is corrupt, we can't wait for it to act- it is not in American interests to do so. (and thanks for all you do for our troops!)

Personally, I hope the Democrats lose- they probably won't...but I think it will be a very expensive lesson for the American people.  can you say... SOCIALISM?

[BigSky]

That was a wonderful post Mysty.  Thank you for it.  I totally agree.  And good for you for helping the Vets and others.

And thanks Bill I was just about to do some quotes on the link.

BTW BigSky, the weapons found were thought to be manufactured before 1991.  The chemical weapons were not in useable condition. A report given by Rep. Pete Hoekatra in June, 2006 says this does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991.  These munitions are not the WMD that this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD for which this country went to war.
And what does the world think of us?  The post 9/11 perception in Europe is that the U. S. is acting solely in its own interest without regard to the interests of traditional allies including 68% of Italians, 73% of the British, 80%of the French and 85%of Germans. (Numbers from the Nat'l Public Radio.) As far as I'm concerned that is disgrace.
How ignorant is that, BigSky?

Mimi

Umm the whole concept of Saddam not complying with destruction of wmd has been going on since 1991.  DUH

You might note that the UN NEVER said Saddam could have one, two, some, a few,or a couple of WMD.  IT SAID NONE!   Is that concept a bit much for you to grasp?

Actually they were WMD as classified by the UN.   In fact US troops got sick from sarin exposure when insurgents used one as  a bomb did they not.  So evidently they were usable to some degree now huh!
 
From the very beginning there was a long list of things this war was going to be over.  So the innuendo that it was over only WMD is disingenuous.

Damn right we should act in our interest.  Saddam wasnt the one trying to commit terrorist attacks on the Italians or  British.  Nor was he trying to commit it on the French or Germans who where violating UN sanctions by illegally trading with Iraq.  We were the ones in his cross hairs.  Not them.  Since they were not in his cross hairs, they have NO right to question what we did.

Saddam committed acts of war on the US and we acted.  We NEVER have to apologize for defending ourselves from terrorists.

[kitkatz]

I am putting out the lawn chairs and getting the popcorn out...This should be good.

[xtrememoosetrax]

"According to Bob Woodward, during a conversation about Iraq, George Bush once told Republican leaders, 'I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney* are the only ones supporting me.'"

No worries, George!  Bigsky will be there to make it a foursome!  


*For anyone (possibly overseas) who might be wondering, Barney is the president's dog.

[Mimi]

  xtrememoosetrax!!!

[MattyBoy100]

That was a wonderful post Mysty.  Thank you for it.  I totally agree.  And good for you for helping the Vets and others.

And thanks Bill I was just about to do some quotes on the link.

BTW BigSky, the weapons found were thought to be manufactured before 1991.  The chemical weapons were not in useable condition. A report given by Rep. Pete Hoekatra in June, 2006 says this does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991.  These munitions are not the WMD that this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD for which this country went to war.
And what does the world think of us?  The post 9/11 perception in Europe is that the U. S. is acting solely in its own interest without regard to the interests of traditional allies including 68% of Italians, 73% of the British, 80%of the French and 85%of Germans. (Numbers from the Nat'l Public Radio.) As far as I'm concerned that is disgrace.
How ignorant is that, BigSky?

Mimi

Umm the whole concept of Saddam not complying with destruction of wmd has been going on since 1991.  DUH

You might note that the UN NEVER said Saddam could have one, two, some, a few,or a couple of WMD.  IT SAID NONE!   Is that concept a bit much for you to grasp?

Actually they were WMD as classified by the UN.   In fact US troops got sick from sarin exposure when insurgents used one as  a bomb did they not.  So evidently they were usable to some degree now huh!
 
From the very beginning there was a long list of things this war was going to be over.  So the innuendo that it was over only WMD is disingenuous.

Damn right we should act in our interest.  Saddam wasnt the one trying to commit terrorist attacks on the Italians or  British.  Nor was he trying to commit it on the French or Germans who where violating UN sanctions by illegally trading with Iraq.  We were the ones in his cross hairs.  Not them.  Since they were not in his cross hairs, they have NO right to question what we did.

Saddam committed acts of war on the US and we acted.  We NEVER have to apologize for defending ourselves from terrorists.

Allow me to correct YOUR ignorance, I think you will find, it was Osama Bin Laden operating possibly from Afghanistan or Pakistan borders that actually committed or organised terrorist attacks on US soil and not Saddam at all. Saddam may have attacked Kuwait originally which is when US troops got involved in the Gulf Wars to protect oil interests and of course, the sovereignty of Kuwait.

Maybe the figures should be explained a bit better about percentages here. 73% of people in the UK believe they were misled by the government and the leader of that government at the time when he said that that Saddam did have WMD.  Before he left government, Tony Blair, our previous Prime Minister admitted that there was no evidence to support this and that he and the cabinet had acted on a report which said it was "highly likely there were WMD's which could reach the UK in a matter of minutes."

Please folks get your facts right before you start ranting and raving.

[mysty]

Allow me to correct YOUR ignorance, I think you will find, it was Osama Bin Laden operating possibly from Afghanistan or Pakistan borders that actually committed or organised terrorist attacks on US soil and not Saddam at all. Saddam may have attacked Kuwait originally which is when US troops got involved in the Gulf Wars to protect oil interests and of course, the sovereignty of Kuwait.

Maybe the figures should be explained a bit better about percentages here. 73% of people in the UK believe they were misled by the government and the leader of that government at the time when he said that that Saddam did have WMD.  Before he left government, Tony Blair, our previous Prime Minister admitted that there was no evidence to support this and that he and the cabinet had acted on a report which said it was "highly likely there were WMD's which could reach the UK in a matter of minutes."

Please folks get your facts right before you start ranting and raving.

Very true.. I keep up with politics in the UK..Since they are one of our biggest allies.  Thing is yes.. we were attacked.. but not by the COUNTRY.. but by the idiot that George SR.. didnt get right and now JR is doing no better.  Hell we put Hussein in power!  Hello.. where was the brain cell in that choice!..
The whole thing reeks ...it was not well planned out.. it was a knee jerk reaction.. the UN might be corrupt.. what government isnt but.. but.. the point is... those biggies in the UN have to agree.. not us go out as a single calvary and pull in favors from UK, Canada and such.. that was wrong.....

And I understand not wanting the Democrats in office Glitter.. and i will defend your right to your choice...I personally am registered Democrat.. but I vote the person.. not the party...right now.. they all look like loosers to me....its a matter of picking the lesser of the evils in ones own mind..... that or I'm tossing in the towel... moving into the boonies and forgetting society and civiliization... I'm soooo fed up with all the corruption....

[Mimi]

Well BigSky DUH- the UN never said Bush could go to war either, but he DID.

So one bomb that the insurgents used AFTER
 we invaded their country and killed their citizens. DUH

And - there were other things the war was going to be over, but the main reason we went to war was the
face that the Govt. scared us to death about WMD  And also claims that Saddam was linked to 9/11.
That is the ingenuous and sincere fact.

I never said we shouldn't protect ourselves or that we needed to apologize.  Neither do I want to see the U. S.
go down in history books as war mongers.

Mimi

[BigSky]

Allow me to correct YOUR ignorance, I think you will find, it was Osama Bin Laden operating possibly from Afghanistan or Pakistan borders that actually committed or organised terrorist attacks on US soil and not Saddam at all. Saddam may have attacked Kuwait originally which is when US troops got involved in the Gulf Wars to protect oil interests and of course, the sovereignty of Kuwait.

Maybe the figures should be explained a bit better about percentages here. 73% of people in the UK believe they were misled by the government and the leader of that government at the time when he said that that Saddam did have WMD.  Before he left government, Tony Blair, our previous Prime Minister admitted that there was no evidence to support this and that he and the cabinet had acted on a report which said it was "highly likely there were WMD's which could reach the UK in a matter of minutes."

Please folks get your facts right before you start ranting and raving.

Actually Matty you are wrong.  I will let you slide because you are not American and do not know the history of Saddam and his attacks and attempts.

It seems you are one of the masses who associate the word terrorist attack with only that of 9/11.  Sorry but we are not talking 9/11 here nor are we talking about Osama and his acts of 9/11 or  his prior terrorist attacks on the US.   

We are talking attacks and attempted attacks by Saddam.  Such as when Saddam took 177 Americans hostage, or when Saddam bombed US officials overseas, or when Saddam tried to poison food and water supplies of US troops in Saudi or the fact Saddam tried to acquire smallpox as to infect people to send to the US and start a modern day plague.   Even the fact that Saddam tried time and time again to shoot down US jets. 

Well BigSky DUH- the UN never said Bush could go to war either, but he DID.

The UN didnt have to say we could go to war.  UN resolutions SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED MEMBER STATES TO USE ANY MEANS NECESSARY to enforce resolutions.    Shall I define the word "any" so you understand?

So one bomb that the insurgents used AFTER
 we invaded their country and killed their citizens. DUH

Hmm one more than the freaking NONE they were too have now huh!

And - there were other things the war was going to be over, but the main reason we went to war was the
face that the Govt. scared us to death about WMD  And also claims that Saddam was linked to 9/11.
That is the ingenuous and sincere fact.

Not even close.  We went to war because of 9/11, not because Saddam was linked to 9/11.   You should be ashamed you did not understand the difference.

I never said we shouldn't protect ourselves or that we needed to apologize.  Neither do I want to see the U. S.
go down in history books as war mongers.

Mimi

Actually you did.  It may not have been those words outright.  But when you come up with the bs line of:

"The audacity of the U. S. to think they had a right to invade another country and get rid of their devil dictator.  It was not our place to do it...snip"


That is EXACTLY what you are saying!

[lola]

Kit I'm with you

[paris]

I am saying this meekly because I hate this debate and name calling---so just a quick  from me.   I have taught both Iran and Iraq children and came to know their parents. I have never had one say anything put positive things about our involvement. These families want freedom from tyranny and to not live their lifes in fear.  Not saying who politically is right or wrong; just looking at the human factor.  Politics and religion--my two least favorite subjects. 

[Bill Peckham]

Wither - to dry up or fade. This thread is actually instructive. The interest in the fact that there is an Iraq war, going on right now, has faded. Is it because there is no agreement on how it is we got here? The people involved will have to answer for themselves. Bush is pretty young and fit, if his dad is a guide he'll have the next two or three decades to explain what happened. We can only answer for our actions and avoiding the issue, not reading about it, not talking about it is a poor choice in my opinion. I'm not sympathetic of those who feel everything that needs to be said has been said. One it's not true and two you have to go out of your way to read this - if you've made up your mind then read one of the other 200 or so posts a day here on IHD (incredable).

It's the five year anniversary. I think it is worth a moment to reflect. Christopher Hitchens asks some interesting questions in his piece here http://www.slate.com/id/2186740/ This is a good question to think about: "the very thing that most repels people when they contemplate Iraq, which is the chaos and misery and fragmentation (and the deliberate intensification and augmentation of all this by the jihadists), invites the inescapable question: What would post-Saddam Iraq have looked like without a coalition presence?"

It's unknowable but would it have been worse if we had pulled back to northern Iraq and let the Baath Party sort it out once we found Saddam in his spider-hole? I think we would have avoided a lot of heartache and be in a better position today with regard to Iran. I think we still have that option except now we've entrenched the shiites but that really is water under the bridge. We're not getting that one back. Iraq and Iran will be strategic allies in the 21st century.

[Mimi]

I agree with you Bill, but I would hate to get banned from the board.

Mimi

[Bill Peckham]

As we mark the five year anniversary it is worthwhile to look back, remember where we were in April/May of '03

“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” - President Bush, 5/1/03

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight. And, today I think Americans should be very proud of their leadership.” – John McCain, 4/9/03

Here is a summary of the Iraq war's impact - mostly in their own words http://nsnetwork.org/node/257